On Thursday 27 March 2008 03:05:14 pm John Ridgway wrote: > On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2008, at 9:51 PM, John Ridgway wrote: > >> Friends - > >> Poly/ML is an implementation of the ML programming language. As > >> such, > >> it has an interpreter which basically just loads the Poly/ML library > >> and runs it. It is possible to have a program that uses the Poly/ML > >> library but doesn't need the interpreter. > >> > >> The current version of Poly/ML is 5.1. Poly/ML 4.1.4 is still out > >> there, and may want to appear in Fink at some point. I would like to > >> create package polyml5 and have polyml5-shlibs as a split-off of it. > >> The problem is that libpolyml.dylib is at version 1.0.0 (or 2.0.0, I > >> forget which), not 5-something, and this seems to violate the Fink > >> packaging guidelines. Can anyone help me out of my conundrum? It > >> would seem very odd for package polyml5 at version 5.1 to have > >> polyml- > >> shlibs at version 1.0.0 as a SplitOff. > >> > >> I would really like to get Poly/ML into Fink so I can get Isabelle > >> into Fink as well. > >> > >> Peace > >> - John > > > > The name of the base package and the -shlibs don't actually have to > > agree. > > > > The -shlibs splitoff should be numbered by the compatibility > > version of the library.
Now that I think about it, the install_name of the primary library (libfoo.N.dylib) is what you'd want to number the -shlibs and -dev by, rather than the compatibility version. (I inherited a package that uses the latter and so I've had sustained confusion on this issue) > > By policy, the -shlibs package for Poly/ML > > 5.1 would need to be "polyml1-shlibs" or "polyml2-shlibs", depending > > on what the version of the library actually is. You could, > > however, leave its shlibs splitoff as polyml-shlibs, since it's the > > first shared library package for a polyml* package. For that > > matter, if Poly/ML 5.1 is the first such package in Fink, you can > > just call it polyml. > > > > Then if Poly/ML 4.1.4 is added to Fink at some point, it can be > > called polyml4, and its shared library package would be polymlN- > > shlibs, where N corresponds to its compatibility version. > > > > One question, though: would the library packages ever be used by > > anything else, or just by polyml? If the latter, then you don't > > even have to have a splitoff. > > I will want polyml4, and I suspect that polyml6 will appear in the > future, so I'm inclined to go with the polyml5 name at this point. So > polyml5.info would be for Poly/ML version 5.1 and would have a > SplitOff of polyml2-shlibs. What version would polyml2-shlibs have? > It would seem from the packaging guidelines (don't change the version > in a SplitOff) that it should also be at 5.1. I'm just trying to get > this clear. > That's right. The version will be 5.1. > And, yes, the library could be used by other things than polyml5. > > Peace > - John > > OK, then what you could have is that the -dev and -shlibs splitoffs would be named polymlN-dev and polymlN-shlibs, where N refers to the libversion of the library package. The corresponding executable would be polyml4, polyml5, or polyml6. -- Alexander K. Hansen akh AT finkproject DOT org Fink User Liaison and Documenter
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
